Rome, May 29, 1985
Your Excellency,
The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland has forwarded to me your letter of April 17 last. I thank you for it. I have read it with the most careful attention, looking upon it as the prolongation of our meeting of January 20, 1985.
In the last part of your letter, you put forward five concrete proposals to regularize the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. This is indeed a desirable objective, and one we have at various times envisaged in the past. As a preliminary step, it would be good if the present situation (installation of Houses, categories and numbers of members, etc.) were better known by the Holy See, and so it would be desirable if you could have precise information given me on this point. However, such a regularisation pre-supposes the prior condition well known to you of a declaration signed by yourself and by the members of your Society. In your letter of April 17, page 1, you propose an extremely brief version of the declaration, which would be acceptable in itself, but which unfortunately ceases to be so when the remarks of page 2 are added on, which you say flow from the Declaration and make it more explicit, declares that "we accept the texts of the Council in accordance with the to say according to the traditional magisterium of the Church". But then remarks require not only noteworthy revision of several conciliar documents, but also "whole of the Declaration on Religious Liberty, considered to be "contrary to the Magisterium of the I can only repeat what I wrote to you in the name of the Holy Father in my letter of July 20, "You may express the desire for a Declaration or an explanatory development of this or that point. But you may not state that the texts of the Council, which are texts of the Magisterium, are incompatible with the Church's Magisterium and Tradition." The same thing holds for the new and especially grave accusation which you make against the new Code of Canon Law, published in the fullness of his authority by Pope John Paul II.
For indeed the first point criterion of Tradition, that is the additional sale revision" Church". Here 1983 (page 3):
On the second point, you declare you do not state "that the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated according to the rite published in Rome, is automatically invalid or heretical". Notwithstanding, the second of your additional remarks still makes considerable accusations with regard to the Liturgical Reform which you say constitutes "a very grave danger for the Catholic Faith". There again, I can only remind you of what I wrote in the letter already quoted (pages 1 and 2), notably of this: "(...) to express the desire of a new revision is possible (...). However, this is on condition that the criticism should not hinder or destroy obedience and that it should not call in question the legitimacy of the Church's liturgy".
Your Excellency, I would have liked to be able to give you here and now, and on the Sovereign Pontiff's behalf, a more favourable answer, envisaging without delay the setting in motion of a regularising process often mentioned between us by word of mouth and in writing. Regretfully I see that this is not yet possible. In conscience, I must invite you to reflect further in the presence of Jesus and of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.
Be at least assured that for this quite special intention, I unite my prayers with your own. And graciously accept the expression of my sentiments of religious and most respectful devotion.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Your Excellency,
The Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland has forwarded to me your letter of April 17 last. I thank you for it. I have read it with the most careful attention, looking upon it as the prolongation of our meeting of January 20, 1985.
In the last part of your letter, you put forward five concrete proposals to regularize the canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. This is indeed a desirable objective, and one we have at various times envisaged in the past. As a preliminary step, it would be good if the present situation (installation of Houses, categories and numbers of members, etc.) were better known by the Holy See, and so it would be desirable if you could have precise information given me on this point. However, such a regularisation pre-supposes the prior condition well known to you of a declaration signed by yourself and by the members of your Society. In your letter of April 17, page 1, you propose an extremely brief version of the declaration, which would be acceptable in itself, but which unfortunately ceases to be so when the remarks of page 2 are added on, which you say flow from the Declaration and make it more explicit, declares that "we accept the texts of the Council in accordance with the to say according to the traditional magisterium of the Church". But then remarks require not only noteworthy revision of several conciliar documents, but also "whole of the Declaration on Religious Liberty, considered to be "contrary to the Magisterium of the I can only repeat what I wrote to you in the name of the Holy Father in my letter of July 20, "You may express the desire for a Declaration or an explanatory development of this or that point. But you may not state that the texts of the Council, which are texts of the Magisterium, are incompatible with the Church's Magisterium and Tradition." The same thing holds for the new and especially grave accusation which you make against the new Code of Canon Law, published in the fullness of his authority by Pope John Paul II.
For indeed the first point criterion of Tradition, that is the additional sale revision" Church". Here 1983 (page 3):
On the second point, you declare you do not state "that the Novus Ordo Mass, celebrated according to the rite published in Rome, is automatically invalid or heretical". Notwithstanding, the second of your additional remarks still makes considerable accusations with regard to the Liturgical Reform which you say constitutes "a very grave danger for the Catholic Faith". There again, I can only remind you of what I wrote in the letter already quoted (pages 1 and 2), notably of this: "(...) to express the desire of a new revision is possible (...). However, this is on condition that the criticism should not hinder or destroy obedience and that it should not call in question the legitimacy of the Church's liturgy".
Your Excellency, I would have liked to be able to give you here and now, and on the Sovereign Pontiff's behalf, a more favourable answer, envisaging without delay the setting in motion of a regularising process often mentioned between us by word of mouth and in writing. Regretfully I see that this is not yet possible. In conscience, I must invite you to reflect further in the presence of Jesus and of the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church.
Be at least assured that for this quite special intention, I unite my prayers with your own. And graciously accept the expression of my sentiments of religious and most respectful devotion.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
